The Florida Anthropological Society Inc. holds
source text of the Florida Anthropologist
considered the copyright holder for the text
these publications.

all rights to the
and shall be
and images of

The Florida Anthropological Society has made this publication
available to the University of Florida, for purposes of
digitization and Internet distribution.

The Florida Anthropological Society reserves all rights to this
publication. All uses, excluding those made under "fair use"
provisions of U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 107 are restricted.

Contact the Florida Anthropological Society for additional
information and permissions.

FA
Serials Section
THE FLORIDA es
Campus

ANTHROPOLOGIST A

U OF F LIBRARY

~ 13

-G a*6 C
p..' t -
b **pfa

VOLUME 38
Sl/3 7.c7
*

NUMBER 3

SEPTEMBER 1985

PUBLISHED BY THE

FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is published quarterly by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc.,
P.O. Box 1013, Tallahassee, Florida 32302. Subscription is by membership in the Society for
individuals, families and institutions interested in the aims of the Society. Annual dues are
$12 (Individual), $18 (Family), $15 (Institutional), $25 (Sustaining), $100 (Patron) and $150
(Life). Foreign subscriptions are an additional $5 U.S. currency to cover added postage costs
for individual, family or institutional membership categories. Requests for information on the
Society and membership application forms, as well as notifications of changes of address,
should be addressed to the Membership Secretary. Donations should be sent to the Treasurer.
Requests for copies of the Editorial Policy and Style Guide (re: FA 37(1)), orders for back
issues, submissions of manuscripts for publication and notices of non-receipt or damaged issues
should be sent to the Editor. Newsletter items should be sent to the President. Address
changes should be made AT LEAST 30 days prior to the mailing of the next issue. The Post Office
will not forward bulk rate mail.

COVER ILLUSTRATIONS: (FRONT) Fort Walton ceramic vessels after Willey (1949:Figures
57 and 60). Illustrations courtesy Louis D. Tesar. (BACK) Speculative View
(facing south) of the San Luis Archaeological and Historic Site as it was in 1702.
Rendering based on interpretation of archaeological and historic site information.
As more is learned from continuing excavations and documentary research, it will
be possible to create new, more accurate reconstructions. Reproduced courtesy
Florida Department of State, Division of Archives, History and Records Management.

As many of you may have noticed, I
accidentally included an earlier
uncorrected draft, rather than the
final text, of the Editor's Page in the
last issue, FA 38(1-2, Pt. 2)-our first
special publication since 1978. That
issue was funded with $3000 received
through Guest Editor Nancy M. White as
part of a grant from the University of
South Florida President's Council, plus
the $316 raised at the art auction held
at our most recent annual meeting in
Daytona Beach, Florida. The donors
were Weslie Coleman (Shell Gorget),
Louis D. Tesar (Gundrum Florida Indian
Ceramic Reproduction), John Beriault
(Key Marco Deer Head Replica) and Judy
Trimble (Water Color Painting). The
participants in that auction, particu-
larly the successful bidders, are also
thanked.

This issue features "A Proposed Revi-
sion of the Fort Walton Ceramic Typolo-
gy: A Type-Variety System" by John F.
Scarry. It is a reasonable article
worthy of serious study and testing;
although like other first attempts, it
does have some problems to be worked
out. I hope that our readers will give
serious attention to Scarry's proposal
and subject it to the testing and
refinement which it merits.

Recognizing that this article might
prove to be controversial, I proposed
to Scarry that in addition to the usual
Editorial Board peer review which the
article would be subjected to, that we
also invite critical review comments
from others doing research on this and
related topics so that the expected
comments could be received and respond-
ed to in the same issue. Scarry agreed
and around half the invitees responded.

Some of the concerns expressed by
reviewers in the draft copy sent out
for review have already been corrected

by Scarry in the final draft. Scarry
has presented a response to the review-
ers following the presentation of their
comments. As one can see from the
comments by Griffin, Luer, Mitchem and
Knight more work is needed. However,
this is acknowledged by Scarry, and I
agree with him in concluding that the
present system is in need of overhaul,
and that a type-variety system is a
viable alternative.

Our Current Research and Comments
section has not received as many
submissions as anticipated. However,
Jeff Mitchem has provided us with some
new dates from several sites in eastern
Citrus County, Florida. In addition,
Marsha Chance describes events at the
opening to the public of the San Luis
site, as well as discussing present and
future plans for the site which is co-
managed by the Bureau of Archaeological
Research and the Museum of Florida
History. Visit San Luis and other
state-owned archaeological and historic
sites. Significant archaeological and
historic sites, like San Luis, have
been and continue to be purchased each
year by the State. The active support
and encouragement of the Florida
Anthropological Society, its members,
and other preservation groups and
individuals, through your participa-
tion in meetings, letters and post
cards to the Department and your local
legislators can and do have an effect
on site acquisition, program funding
and operations.

We all must be stewards of these re-
sources, if they are to be preserved
for the benefit of ourselves and future
generations.

Louis D. Tesar
September 5, 1985

198

A PROPOSED REVISION OF THE FORT WALTON CERAMIC
TYPOLOGY: A TYPE-VARIETY SYSTEM
John F. Scarry

Introduction

During the late prehistoric and early
historic periods (ca. A.D. 1000-1700),
societies possessing Mississippian
cultural adaptations and the Fort
Walton material culture flourished in
the Chattahoochee and Apalachicola
River Valleys and certain nearby areas
of northwest Florida (Figure 1). We
now realize that these societies formed
a major regional variant of the
Mississippian culture and that investi-
gation of these systems can shed much
light on the processes by which
Mississippian systems developed,
evolved, and operated. In order for
studies of Fort Walton systems to make
such contributions, we must be able to
control-spatially, temporally, and
culturally-the archaeological contexts
we study. The ability to use ceramics
to establish this control is essential.

The traditional Fort Walton ceramic
typology (Willey 1949 and subsequent
modifications) has hindered attempts to
answer processual questions using data
from Fort Walton sites. Three major
faults inherent in the typology have
reduced its usefulness for marking
decrete spatial, temporal, and social
units. First, it makes it difficult to
assess similarities and differences
among ceramic assemblages. Second, it
is difficult to apply to assemblages
composed of sherds rather than complete
vessels. Third, it is largely incom-
patible with the typologies now in use
in other portions of the Southeast.

In this paper I propose a typology
based on a type-variety system (Wheat
et al. 1958; Phillips 1958) that
attempts to overcome these problems.

My typology is loosely patterned after
the system now employed in the Lower
Mississippi Valley (Phillips 1970). I
have chosen this model for several
reasons: (1) archaeological studies in
the Southeast have demonstrated the
usefulness of the type-variety system
for defining space-time cultural units
(see, e.g., Brown 1982; Phillips 1970;
Steponaitis 1983); (2) the type-variety
system is flexible and can be expanded
to include new types and varieties; and
(3) a similar type-variety system is
now being used in parts of Alabama
(e.g., Fuller and Stowe 1982; Jenkins
1981; Steponaitis 1980b, 1983).

The Existing Fort Walton Typology

Gordon Willey's Archeology of the
Florida Gulf Coast is, as it has been
since its publication in 1949, the
definitive study of the aboriginal
ceramics of northwest Florida. The
ceramic typology Willey presented has
structured archaeological research in
the Fort Walton area for over 30 years.
The typology has been modified on
several occasions (e.g., Bullen 1950;
Griffin 1950; Sears 1967), but its form
has remained substantially intact.

The Willey typology is a type-series
system, containing three levels of
typological units: the type, the
series, and the complex (see Table 1).
The series and the complex are not
strictly hierarchical levels, as this
would require that each series be part
of one and only one complex
(Steponaitis, personal communication).
While Willey presents them in this
fashion, many types must be considered
to belong to more than one complex.

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

199

September, 1985

Volume 38 Number 3

Figure 1. The Fort Walton area.

Table 2. The Cemochechobee
et al. 1981).

Table 1. Types of the original and modified Willey Fort
Walton typology.

The smallest unit in the system is the
ceramic type. According to Willey,
(1949:5)

the function of a pottery type
is as an historical tool. It is
conceived of as an abstraction
based upon a specified range of
constructional and artistic
variables which are recognized
in a group of pottery specimens.
To be of value in the solution
of historical problems each type
must have a definable time and
space position ....

As the type is thought of as
representing a number of combi-
nations of techniques in manu-
facture, materials, form, and
decorative features it is
obvious that not all of these
features, or modes (see Rouse,
1939), will appear on any one
specimen but will tend to fall
in a normal frequency of occur-
rence curve for the type. The
degree of allowable variation
within a type follows no set
rules. It has, however, been a
principle to establish a new
type when any material, form, or
style variations is found to
have temporal, spatial, or
associative significance.

By definition, a type cannot be subdi-
vided.

The second unit in Willey's typology is
the ceramic series. The series con-
sists of related types that share a
common paste and temper. Types in a
series usually have similar temporal
and spatial distributions but this is
not an absolute requirement.

The final, and broadest unit in
Willey's typology is the ceramic
complex. Willey defined a ceramic
complex as a group of "...pottery types
or the various series of types that
occur together in the same general area
at the same time" (1949:6). He equated

the ceramic complex with culture
period.

The structure of the traditional
typology has not changed since Willey's
initial formulation although the
redefinition of types and the addition
of new types have modified its content
(e.g., Bullen 1950; Griffin 1950; Sears
1967; Smith 1948a, 1951b). The current
version of Willey's typology is shown
in Table 1.

Frank Schnell, Vernon Knight, and Gail
Schnell have made a significant attempt
to propose an alternative to the
traditional typology. In their report
on the Cemochechobee site (1981) they
proposed a type-variety system based
largely on vessel form. This system
differs markedly from both the tradi-
tional type-series system and from my
type-variety system (see Table 2).

Weaknesses Of The Traditional Typology

Earlier I noted that the traditional
typology suffers from three major
faults. These faults are the result of
the nature of the system, the criteria
on which type definitions are based,
and the type definitions themselves.

Use of the traditional typology has
tended to create the appearance of
sudden, sharp breaks in the cultural
sequence of the Fort Walton area.
Willey argued that types must have
temporal, spatial, and associative
significance and he tended to define
new types for each ceramic complex.
Thus we find that in the Fort Walton
area, Willey defined 7 check stamped
types and 13 plain types and wares,
some of which (e.g., Jefferson Ware and
Lake Jackson Plain) are very difficult
to distinguish without contextual data
(see Table 3).

Alex Krieger (1951) criticized Willey's
typology on just this point in his

Table 3. Plain wares (after Willey 1949).

Type Temper Surface Finish

St. Marks Plain clay; very little sand smoothed but
or grit; some very fine bumpy
fibers

review of Archeology of the Florida
Gulf Coast. He argued that defining
types as Willey did masks cultural
continuity and tends to give a false
picture of sudden and dramatic change.
He suggests that,

by establishing broader catego-
ries with more internal varia-
tion, as he did in a few cases,
the typology could be made to
reflect rather than to submerge
the cultural continuum through
the different periods (Krieger
1951:64).

Unfortunately, the broadly defined
types advocated by Krieger (which
Willey did use on occasion) mask
temporal and spatial variation. The
problem with the traditional typology
lies not only in the definition of the
types themselves but in the nature of
the basic unit of the type-series
system. The basic unit-the type-is
by definition the smallest unit of the
system and cannot be subdivided. This
makes it difficult to discern varia-
tions in ceramic assemblages that are
based on differences subsumed within
Willey's types (e.g., differences in
the motifs of Fort Walton Incised).

Not only do the existing types create
the appearance of sudden change and
mask variability, they are frequently
hard to sort. Many are poorly bounded
and difficult to distinguish from other
types (see White 1982:240-250 for a
discussion of this problem). For
example, there are five types (Aucilla
Incised, Englewood Incised, Fort Walton
Incised, Pinellas Incised, and Safety
Harbor Incised) that are decorated with
a combination of incised lines and
punctations and tempered with sand or
sand and grog. Examination of the
formal criteria used to identify these
types suggest that there is considera-
ble variability within individual types
and considerable overlap among the
types. Particularly when sherds are

being sorted, instances arise when it
is impossible to assign the specimen to
a type.

These problems suggest that it would be
beneficial to replace the traditional
typology with one that lacks weakness-
es. To date, only one alternative has
been proposed, the type-variety system
of Schnell, Knight, and Schnell (1981).

Many archaeologists have noted the
marked similarities among the ceramics
from the Fort Walton and Pensacola
areas and those of the Lower Mississip-
pi Valley and the South Appalachian
area. C.B. Moore (e.g., 1903:445-466)
and W.H. Holmes (1903; 1914) both
recognized such similarities. However,
the most thorough demonstration of the
widespread similarities among ceramic
complexes in the Southeast (including
those of the Fort Walton area) was
James A. Ford's Measurements of Some
Prehistoric Design Developments in the
Southeastern United States (1952). His
exhaustive comparison of types and
sequences left little doubt about the
relationships between the Fort Walton
area and areas farther west. Since
Ford's study, David Brose (1980b), Ian
Brown (1982), and Stephen Williams
(1979) have also pointed out both
specific and general similarities.
Unfortunately, the ceramic typology now
in use in the Fort Walton area tends to
obscure these relationships.

I have chosen to follow the typological
model of Philip Phillips for several
reasons. First, it facilitates the
investigation of space-time systematics
and the construction of chronological
frameworks. Second, it is flexible and
expandable; new types can be added and
new varieties can be added to existing
types without affecting type defini-
tions. Third, it can incorporate the
earlier type-series system by retaining
many of the earlier types (either as
types or as varieites of types).
Fourth, it can facilitate direct
comparison with the Lower Mississippi
Valley, Mississippi, and western

Alabama since it would be compatible
with the typologies now used in those
areas.

While I have tried to construct a
typology compatible with Phillip's, I
have deviated from a strict adherence
to his scheme. I have generally
ignored differences in paste due to
variation in tempering agents (e.g.,
while I have distinguished all ceramics
that contain shell temper, I have
elected not to divide Fort Walton
Incised into several types or even
varieties based on distinctions among
tempering modes). I have done so
because, as others have noted (Brose
1980b; Schnell et al. 1981), tempering
is highly variable in Fort Walton
assemblages and nearly identical
designs can be found on vessels tem-
pered with fine sand, coarse sand,
grog, or limestone. In the type Lake
Jackson Plain, however, I have used
tempering distinctions as the basis for
varieties. This allows Lake Jackson
Plain varieties to be used to investi-
gate the chronological behavior to
tempering, following Tesar's (1980:167-
168, 203-205) suggestion.

There are, of course, sources of
variability in Fort Walton ceramic
assemblages beyond those I have used to
define the types and varieties proposed
in this paper. Some of these can
provide valuable information concerning
chronology and cultural associations.
One such source of variation consists

of differences in the form and decora-
tion of rim sherds. Another includes
differences in the form and size of
vessels. Both appear to be chronologi-
cally and spatially sensitive.

Here I will only address variation in
rims. Schnell et al. (1981) have
addressed the question of variation in
vessel form in the northern portion of
the Fort Walton area, but we have not
done comparable studies in the southern
portion of the Fort Walton area. A
discussion of vessel form variability
must, I think, await additional re-
search that will provide data from the
southern portion of the Fort Walton
area comparable to those which Schnell
et al. obtained from the northern
portion.

Following the usage of Philip Phillips
(1970:28-29), I have used variation in
rims to define modes. Phillips
(1970:28) defined modes as

...recurrent attribute combina-
tions not essentially unlike
types and varieties but usually
of a more specific partitive
nature. .... The relationship
between types and varieties and
modes is mainly the result of
historical accident. When
certain combinations of attri-
butes are selected to define
types and varieties, other
combinations that may be just as
meaningful are automatically
excluded because they crosscut
the classes already set up.
They cannot be integrated into
the classification, or into any
quantitative manipulations based
on it. The only way to make use
of such combinations is to sort,
count, and plot them separately,
as modes.

An exhaustive study of rim modes in
Fort Walton ceramic assemblages is
beyond the scope of this paper, al-

207

though I will address the subject
briefly. For more detailed studies of
rim modes that relate to Fort Walton
assemblages, the reader should consult
Schnell et al. (1981), Fuller and Stowe
(1982), Smith (1951a), Jones (1973),
Jones and Penman (1973), and Brown
(1982).

Several attempts to define rim modes
present in Fort Walton ceramic assem-
blages have been made. Willey (1949)
noted the presence of ticking (or
notching) on the rims of many decorated
Fort Walton and Pensacola vessels. He
also pointed out the presence of loop,
strap, and lug handles on both decorat-
ed and plain vessels in these late
assemblages. However, he did not
seriously attempt to use these features
to distinguish temporal or regional
variants of the Fort Walton ceramic
complex.

In his definition of the Leon-Jefferson
ceramic complex, Hale G. Smith identi-
fied five rim types associated with
plain, complicated stamped, and check
stamped pottery at the 17th century
Apalachee missions. Smith distin-
quished these rim types on the basis of
the form and location of rim decoration
(usually pinching or punctating). His
Type 1 includes those vessels with
flaring rims and a line of large (4-10
mm diameter) punctations immediately
below the lip. Pinching is often
associated with this rim type. Type 2
rims are straight or flaring and have a
series of large (8-12 mm diameter)
punctations along the lip. The outer
surface of the lip appears scalloped on
specimens with large punctations. Type
3 rims are slightly flaring and have a
line of pinching immediately below the
lip. Type 4 rims are straight to
moderately flaring and have a line of
deep rectangular punctations (2-5 mm
across) encircling the vessel below the
rim. Type 5 rims are thickened,
usually by folding, and have a row of
large, deep punctations 1 to 1.5 cm
below the lip (Smith 1951a:169).

In the early 1970s, B. Calvin Jones
adopted a version of Smith's rim types
and defined a series of rim styles
(modes) for the earlier Fort Walton
ceramics based on appendage and rim
forms similar in concept to Smith's
typology. Jones (1973) went beyond
Smith and tried to arrange his rim
styles into a chronological sequence.
Jone's style one rims have been found
only on Lake Jackson Plain vessels.
Rims of this style are decorated with
closely spaced vertical flutes or
pinches. Jone's second style occurs on
both Lake Jackson Plain and Lake
Jackson Incised and is marked by
vertical lug handles with two nodes,
one above the other. The third style
also occurs on both Lake Jackson Plain
and Lake Jackson Incised and is marked
by simple vertical lug handles. Style
four includes all rim sherds with loop
handles and appears on vessels of Lake
Jackson Plain, Lake Jackson Incised,
and Cool Branch Incised. The handles
may be decorated with one or more nodes
or incised lines. Style five rims are
deeply scalloped.

In addition to the rim modes described
by Hale Smith and Calvin Jones, one
other mode appears to be a particularly
good chronological and spatial marker.
Rims of this mode feature a horizontal
applique strip slightly below the lip.
I refer to this mode as the Hornsby's
Bluff mode after the Bull Creek phase
Hornsby's Bluff site in southwestern
Georgia (Kelly 1950).

Although detailed chronological studies
of Fort Walton rim modes have yet to be
made, it appears evident that they have
discrete chronological ranges. Two
groups of modes can be discerned. The
earlier includes all of Jones's modes
based on handle forms. This group
dates to the prehistoric period and
appears in Rood, Cayson, Sneads, Lake
Jackson, and Waddells Mill Pond phase
contexts (Scarry 1981). These modes do
not appear in mission era San Luis
phase contexts in the Tallahassee

Hills. The second group includes all
of Smith's modes and the Hornsby's
Bluff mode. These appear in late
prehistoric and early historic contexts
(e.g., Bull Creek, Yon, Velda, and San
Luis phases (Scarry 1984:371-373, 387-
399, 414-416), see Figure 2 for
chronological chart of these phases).

It is my hope that this scheme will
foster discussion of the benefits to be
derived from the establishment of a
type-variety typology for the Fort
Walton area and the eventual adoption
of such a typology.

Roster Of Types And Varieties
Alachua Cob Marked

The type Alachua Cob Marked, as I have
defined it, subsumes all ceramics in
the Fort Walton area with sandy paste
and corn cob impressed exterior surfac-
es. I have defined two varieties from
Fort Walton contexts.

The definition of the type Alachua Cob
Marked has changed markedly since 1948.
John Goggin (1948:3) used the name to
refer to certain late prehistoric and
early historic ceramics from north-
central Flordia (e.g., outside the Fort
Walton area). Hale Smith (1948a,
1951b) and John Griffin (1950) subse-
quently extended the use of the type to
the Fort Walton area, using the name to
refer to cob marked ceramics from the
Lake Jackson site and the San Francisco
de Ocone mission site. Eventually,
the name came to be used to refer to
all cob marked ceramics found in
Florida. Recently Jerald Milanich
narrowed the scope of Alachua Cob
Marked by excluding certain Late
Woodland cob marked ceramics found in
the Fort Walton area. He defined the
type Northwest Flordia Cob Marked to
include these specimens (1974:44). I
have again expanded the type Alachua
Cob Marked. The ceramics defined by
Milanich as Northwest Florida Cob
Marked become a variety (var. Sycamore)
of Alachua Cob Marked.

Vernon Knight (personal communication)
has noted that there may be some
problems with my broad definition of
Alachua Cob Marked, if it is construed
to include the 17th and 18th century
grit-tempered, cob-marked ceramics,
such as Wedowee Cob Marked. He argues
that these ceramics would better be
thought of as early varieties of
Chattahoochee Brushed and not as late
varieties of Alachua Cob Marked.
Without examining the ceramics in
question, this is a difficult question
to resolve. Either assignment would be
acceptable.

var. Alachua

Vessels of var. Alachua are tempered
with medium to coarse sand and have
poorly smoothed surfaces. The entire
exterior is covered with corn cob
impressions. These impressions have no
set arrangements. The simple bowl is
the typical vessel form.

Sherds of var. Alachua have been found
in early historic period (San Luis
phase) contexts (Smith 1948b, 1951b;
Bierce-Gedris 1981). They are however,
rare in these contexts. These speci-
mens may represent imports from the
Alachua area of north central Florida
where the type dominates contemporary
assemblages (e.g., at the Richardson
site in Alachua County, 43% of all
sherds and over 84% of the decorated
sherds were Alachua Cob Marked
(Milanich 1972:Table 51). (See Goggin
1948; Milanich 1972:Plate 3a-f).

var. Sycamore

Vessels of var. Sycamore can be distin-
guished from those of var. Alachua by
their finer paste and smoother
surfaces. This variety is tempered
with fine to medium sand and has well
smoothed surfaces. The impressions
may be restricted to the shoulder or it
may cover the entire vessel exterior.
Vessel forms include open bowls with

211

straight to slightly excurvate rims and
restricted jars. Specimens of var.
Sycamore have been recovered from Late
Woodland (Wakulla and Chattahoochee
Landing phases) and early Mississippian
(Cayson phase) contexts (Milanich 1974;
Bullen 1958). It appears to be most
common in the Wakulla phase. (See
Milanich 1974:Plate 6t-x).

Andrews Decorated

The type Andrews Decorated subsumes all
vessels with a sandy paste decorated by
a combination of incising and excising
in champleve fashion, including vessels
previously classified as Lemon Bay
Incised (Willey 1949:474-475). Only
one variety is recognized.

Schnell et al. (1981:175-177) first
defined Andrews Decorated on the basis
of a sample of beakers recovered from
presumably ceremonial contexts at the
Cemochechobee site. In its original
form, the definition subsumed all
decorated beakers from Cemochechobee,
regardless of decorative technique or
motif. I have considerably narrowed
the definition of the type here.
Specimens previously classified as
Andrews Decorated are here classified
as Andrews Decorated, Fort Walton
Incised, Marsh Island Incised, or Point
Washington Incised, depending on
technique of decoration.

var. Andrews (Figure 4a, 4b)

Vessels of var. Andrews are tempered
with fine sand and have well smoothed
to polished surfaces. The char-
acteristic design consists of
horizontal rows of excised triangles,
usually bounded above and below by sets
of horizontal incised lines. The
triangles are excised to a depth of 1-2
mm. The only known vessel form is the
beaker. This variety is uncommon, but
widely distributed geographically.
Specimens have been recovered from
Rood, Cayson, and Lake Jackson phase
contexts, and from site 8Fr22 on
Apalachicola Bay. (See Schnell et al.

1981:Plate 4.9e, Plate 4.10b, Plate
4.11e).

Bell Plain

The type Bell Plain was established by
Philip Phillips (1970:58-59) to include
all burnished, fine shell-tempered
ceramics from the Lower Mississippi
Valley. Use of the name has since been
extended into Alabama by Fuller and
Stowe (1982), Jenkins (1981), and
Steponaitis (1983).

Bell Plain vessels appear rarely in
Fort Walton contexts, and I have
elected not to define varieties for the
Fort Walton materials. I feel that, in
all likelihood, these vessels are not
local and therefore should be assigned
to varieties defined in the area of
their origin (see Fuller and Stowe
1982; Jenkins 1981; Steponaitis 1983).

Carrabelle Punctated

The type Carrabelle Punctated subsumes
all Fort Walton area sand-tempered
vessels whose decoration consists of a
band of punctations. This band may be
bounded by incised lines, but it
contains no other decorative elements.
I have defined a single variety of
Carrabelle Punctated from Fort Walton
contexts.

Willey (1949:425) originally defined
Carrabelle Punctated on the basis of
sherds recovered from Weeden Island
(i.e., Woodland) contexts and assigned
it to the Weeden Island series. The
type is much more common in these
contexts than it is in the later Fort
Walton contexts.

During his excavations at the Lake
Jackson site, John Griffin recovered
sherds that resembled Carrabelle
Punctated but that were from
Misssissippian vessel forms and,
therefore, could not date to the Weeden
Island Period. He defined a new type,
Lake Jackson Fingernail Impressed, to
accommodate these specimens (1950:106).

With the expansion of the definition of
Carrabelle Punctated permitted by a
type-variety typology, Griffin's Lake
Jackson Fingernail Impressed can be
incorporated into that type as a new
variety.

var. Coe's Landing (Figure 7b)

The characteristic decoration of this
variety forms a narrow, horizontal band
of punctations bounded above, below, or
both by one or two horizontal incised
lines. Vessel forms appear to be
limited to carinated bowls. This
variety has been found in Cayson and
Sneads phase contexts.

var. Meginnis

This variety is essentially equivalent
to Griffin's Lake Jackson Fingernail
Inpressed. Vessels are tempered with
medium to coarse sand or grog and have
poorly smoothed, lumpy surfaces.
Decoration consists of large punctated
formed by the tip of the finger and the
fingernail. Vessel forms include deep
jars with slightly outflaring rims.
Variety Meginnis is known from the Lake
Jackson phase.

Carthage Incised

Steponaitis (1983:53-54, 307-312)
defined this type to subsume shell-
tempered vessels in the Moundville
Collection that had burnished surfaces
and broad-line, trailed decorations.

Vessels found in northwest Florida that
meet this definition should be assigned
to this type. I have not defined any
varieties for the Fort Walton materi-
als.

Chattahoochee Brushed

The type Chattahoochee Brushed subsumes
all Fort Walton area ceramics whose
exterior surfaces are roughened by
brushing or scoring. I have not

defined any varieties from Fort Walton
contexts, although specimens of the
type do occur on Fort Walton sites
(White 1982:113-114; Tesar 1980:768,
782, 785, 805, 828; Bullen 1950:103)
originally defined the type based on
sherds he recovered from Lower Creek
sites in the Jim Woodruff Reservoir
area and most specimens date to the
historic period.

Columbus Negative Painted

Columbus Negative Painted subsumes all
Fort Walton area sand-tempered vessels
whose decorations include indirect
(negative) painting. It is a rare
type, thus far found only in the
Chattahoochee Valley in Rood and Bull
Creek contexts. Following a suggestion
by Vernon Knight, I have defined two
varieties of the type.

The few vessels of Columbus Negative
Painted that have been recovered
closely resemble, both in form and
design, north Georgia and Tennessee
vessels of the shell-tempered type
Nashville Negative Painted (Phillips
1970:139-141). The Fort Walton
specimens are almost certainly local
copies of such foreign vessels. The
resemblance of Columbus Negative
Painted vessels to the type Nashville
Negative Painted led Stephen Williams
(1979) to define the Fort Walton
specimens as Nashville Negative Paint-
ed, variety Columbus. I have chosen to
accord the Fort Walton specimens type
status because they can be readily
distinguished from the shell-tempered
Nashville Negative Painted specimens.

var. Columbus

The decorations of variety Columbus
consist of black negative painted
designs. Specific design motifs
include many Southern Cult symbols
(e.g., weeping eyes, ogees) and natu-
ralistic elements on effigy vessels.
Vessel forms include dog effigies.
This variety has been found in Bull
Creek phase contexts at the Bull Creek

and Neisler sites (Knight personal
communication; Patterson 1950).

var. Clay

The decorations of this variety consist
of combinations of a buff slip, black
paint, red paint, and black negative
painting. Design motifs include
weeping eyes, ogees, and other elements
of Southern Cult iconography as well as
naturalistic elements on effigy forms.
Vessel forms include dog and human
effigies. Columbus Negative Painted,
var. Clay, vessels have been found in
Rood phase contexts at the Cemoche-
chobee site (see Schnell et al.
1981:77-79, Plate 2.9, 2.10, 2.11).

Cool Branch Incised

The type Cool Branch Incised subsumes
all Fort Walton area sand-tempered
vessels that are decorated with a
series of incised arcades encircling
the upper portion of the vessel. It is
the Fort Walton equivalent of the
widespread shell-tempered type,
Moundville Incised. I have defined
three varieties of Cool Branch In-
cised--Cool Branch, Cemochechobee, and
Fort Gaines.

John Griffin originally defined this
type as Pinellas Incised, variant A
(Griffin 1950:106). William Sears was
the first to use the name cool Branch
Incised (1967). The name is taken from
the Cool Branch site in the Lower
Chattahoochee Valley. Sears based his
definition on specimens recovered from
the Tierra Verde Mound, a Safety Harbor
period site in Pinellas County, Flori-
da. The original definition forms the
basis of the present type description
as well as the definition of the
established variety.

The wide geographical range of Cool
Branch Incised (from Tampa Bay to the
Fall Line) and its relationship to
Moundville Incised have long been re-
cognized. It is an extremely impor-
tant element in early Fort Walton

assemblages (see Caldwell 1955;
Schnell et al. 1981; Sears 1967).
While no quantitative studies have been
made, it appears that the three varie-
ties defined here may have some geogra-
phical significance.

var. Cool Branch (Figure 4e)

The characteristic decoration of
variety Cool Branch forms a series of
running arcades of one to three incised
lines. The lines are embellished with
one or more lines of punctations above
the arcades. Variety Cool Branch
vessels are typically jars tempered
with medium to coarse sand or mixed
sand and grog. This variety has been
found in Rood, Cayson, Yon, and Lake
Jackson phase contexts, and in Safety
Harbor contexts on Florida's Central
Gulf Coast (in the latter three areas,
it is the commonest variety of the
type) (Brose 1980:Plate 3n-p; Griffin
1950:Figure 37(1-3); Lazarus and
Hawkins 1976:7(top), 40(top), 43(top);
Sears 1967; Schnell et al. 1981:Plate
2.7, Plate 4.7g; White 1982:Plate 19a-
d; White et al. 1981:Plate 21c).

var. Cenochechobee (Figure 4c)

In this variety, the arcades consist of
one or more unembellished incised
lines. This is the dominate variety of
Cool Branch Incised in Rood phase
contexts (Lazarus and Hawkins
1976:10(top right); Schnell et al.
1981:Table 4.9, Plate 4.4).

var. Fort Gaines (Figure 4d)

In this variety, the incised arcades
are embellished with short incised
lines radiating upward from (and normal
to) the incised lines forming the
arcade. This variety, like its shell-
tempered counterpart, Moundville
Incised, var. Moundville, appears early
in the Mississippian sequence. Variety
Fort Gaines has been recovered from
Rood phase contexts in the Lower
Chattahoochee Valley (Schnell et al.
1981:Table 4.9), but is rare.

215

D'Olive Incised

Fuller and Stowe (1982) have defined
D'Olive Incised using ceramic collec-
tions from the Alabama-Florida coastal
areas. They use the name to refer to
shell-tempered ceramics whose decora-
tions are composed of dry-paste inci-
sions or engraving and are restricted
to the vessel's interior. D'Olive
Incised is common on the Florida Coast
west of the Fort Walton area and sherds
are occasionally found on Fort Walton
sites. These should be assigned to the
varieties defined by Fuller and Stowe.
No varieties are defined here.

Fort Walton Incised

The type Fort Walton Incised resembles
what Phillips might term a supertype.
As I have defined it here, it subsumes
all ceramics from the Fort Walton area
with a sandy paste whose decorations
are formed by incised lines and contain
punctation filled zones or occur on
punctated backgrounds. I have defined
eight varieties of Fort Walton Incised;
undoubtedly many others can and will be
defined in the future.

Fort Walton Incised was originally
defined by Willey (1949:460-462) who
also defined several types that resem-
bled Fort Walton Incised in decorative
techniques if not in motif (e.g.,
Englewood Incised, Pinellas Incised,
and Safety Harbor Incised). Since
Willey's formulation, additional types
resembling Fort Walton Incised in
formal terms have been defined in the
Lower Chattahoochee Valley (e.g., some
specimens of Andrews Decorated by
Schnell et al. 1981:175-177) and the
Tallahassee Hills (e.g., Aucilla
Incised by Smith 1951b:172). As it is
defined here, Fort Walton Incised
subsumes some specimens previously
assigned to the types mentioned above.

var. Fort Walton (Figure 5c)

The characteristic designs of this

variety consist of a band of running
scrolls (both curvilinear and rectilin-
ear) superimposed on a band of punc-
tations. Typical vessel forms are
carinated or cazuela bowls, beakers,
and bottles (see Figure 3 for vessel
forms). This variety appears to be a
late, but widespread, form of Fort
Walton Incised. It occurs in late Rood
and Bull Creek phase contexts in the
Lower Chattahoochee Valley, in Sneads
and Yon phase contexts in the
Apalachicola Valley, in Lake Jackson,
Velda, and San Luis phase contexts in
the Tallahassee Hills, in Waddells Mill
Pond phase contexts in the Marianna
Lowlands, and in late prehistoric and
protohistoric contexts all along the
Gulf Coast of northwest Florida and the
Safety Harbor area (Broyles 1962:Plate
4h-j, Plate 5 1-m; Griffin 1950:Figure
37(16); Jones and Penman 1973:Plate 2b-
c; Lazarus and Hawkins 1976:15(top),
48; Sears 1967:Figure 4(3); White
1982:Plate 21f, j, r-t; White et al.
1981:Plate 21d).

var. Blalock (Figure 6a)

The characteristic designs of this
variety comprise boldly executed,
simple forms separated by vertical
lines. In one sense, they can be seen
to form a series of rectangular panels
containing scrolls, diagonal lines, or
other simple incised designs. The
usual vessel form is the carinated
bowl. Blalock is an early variety of
Fort Walton Incised and is found in
Rood, Cayson, Sneads, and Waddells Mill
Pond phase contexts (Lazarus 1965:Fig-
ure 5; White 1982:Plate 22c-e).

var. Cayson (Figure 5a)

The characteristic designs of this
variety form a band containing simple
incised rectilinear step figures that
separate alternating plain and punc-
tation filled zones. The usual vessel
form is the carinated bowl. This
variety is common in the Cayson,
Sneads, and Waddells Mill Pond phases

This variety is characterized by
decorations that are confined to the
interior surfaces of bowls. Typical
vessel forms are simple open bowls and
flaring rim bowls (particularly five
and six pointed star forms). This is a
late form of Fort Walton Incised, and
is particularly common in the St.
Andrew Bay-Choctawhatchee Bay region,
west of the Apalachicola Valley. It is
frequently found in 16th century
contexts on the coast, especially as
mortuary furniture. It is occasionally
found in late contexts (perhaps 15th-
16th century) in the Marianna Lowlands,
the Apalachicola Valley, and the
Tallahassee Hills (Lazarus and Hawkins
1976:18(top), 19(top), 34(top), 53(bot-
tom); White 1982:Plate 22a-b).

var. Englewood (Figure 6c)

The characteristic designs of this
variety are formed by narrow, punc-
tation filled bands that form abstract
rectilinear figures including complex
interlocking maze forms, diamonds,
triangles, zigzag bands, or connected
chevrons. Some bounded zones are
filled with puntations while others are
left plain. Vessel forms include
beakers, bottles, a variety of bowl
forms and jars. Variety Englewood has
been recovered from several contexts
(e.g., Rood phase and Lake Jackson
phase contexts) but appears to be most
common in the Safety Harbor area (Jones
1973:Plate 6h-l; Lazarus and Hawkins
1976:49(bottom); Schnell et al.
1981:Plate 4.10; Sears 1967:Figure 4(6,
8); Willey 1949:Plate 46a-c, 47a-e,
48g-h, 49b-d).

var. Safety Harbor (Figure 7c)

The characteristic designs of this
variety are the curvilinear equivalents

of those found on var. Englewood.
Vessel forms include a wide variety of
beakers, bottles, and bowls. This
variety is uncommon in the Fort Walton
area, but common in the Safety Harbor
area (Griffin 1950:Figure 37(13),
Figure 38(7); Jones 1973:Plate 6m, 7a;
Jones and Penman 1973:Plate 2f; Lazarus
and Hawkins 1976:17, 31(top); Willey
1949:Plate 49a, 52 c-f).

The characteristic designs of this
variety are isolated loop and scroll
elements superimposed on a punctated
background. Typical vessel forms
include beakers, bottles and cazuela
bowls. This variety is rare outside
the Safety Harbor area. It is chrono-
logically late and has been found in
protohistoric contexts in the Safety
Harbor area (Jones and Penman
1973:Plate 3a; Sears 1967:Figures 8(2),
9(2); Willey 1949:Figure 63c, d).

Keith Incised

Keith Incised subsumes all Fort Walton
area vessels possessing a sandy paste
and decorated with incised cross-
hatching. I have defined a single
variety from Fort Walton contexts.

Willey (1949:427-428) defined Keith
Incised on the basis of specimens
recovered from Weeden Island contexts
and assigned it to the Weeden Island
ceramic complex. There is no question
that Keith Incised is most common in
Weeden Island contexts. However, it
has been found in the early Cayson
phase component at the Yon site and for
that reason is included here.

220

var. Bristol

This variety is characterized by the
sloppy execution of its decoration.
The only known vessel form is a small
jar with a slightly outflaring rim.
The variety has been recovered from
Wakulla phase and early Cayson phase
contexts (Milanich 1974:Plate 6k-l).

Lake Jackson Incised

The type Lake Jackson Incised subsumes
all Fort Walton area sandy paste
vessels whose decoration consists
solely of horizontal incised lines,
with or without pendant loops or folds.
Vessel forms include beakers, bowls,
and jars. Lake Jackson Incised is a
common type in Fort Walton assemblages
and is frequently the most common
decorated ware at Fort Walton sites.

John Griffin (1950:106) first defined
this type as Pinellas Incised B.
Sears, in his report on the Tierra
Verde site (1967), renamed the type
Lake Jackson Incised. This definition
is based on Sear's. As I have defined
it, Lake Jackson Incised subsumes
vessels previously classified as Lake
Jackson Decorated, Lake Jackson In-
cised, Pinellas Incised B, Point
Washington Incised, and St. Petersburg
Incised. Five varieties are defined
here on the basis of vessel form, line
form, and line number.

var. Lake Lafayette

This variety subsumes all jars having
three or more broad incised lines on
their collars or necks. This variety
is common in the Marianna Lowlands, the
Apalachicola Valley, and the
Tallahassee Hills (Boyd et al.
1951:Plate 12(6, 7); Brose 1980:Plate
2a-d, g-h; Griffin 1950:Figure 37(4-7);
Jones and Penman 1973:Plate 4a, c-e, h;
White et al. 1981:Plate 26c-d).

This variety subsumes all jars bearing
a single broad horizontal line. It is
the commonest variety in the Lower
Chattahoochee Valley (at Cemochechobee,
it comprised 95% of the Lake Jackson
Incised sherds (Schnell et al. 1981:Ta-
ble 4.9).

var. Winewood

This variety subsumes all jars with
multiple horizontal lines that have a
shingles appearance similar to that
found on some specimens of Coles Creek
Incised (Brose 1980a:Plate 2f).

Lake Jackson Plain

The type Lake Jackson Plain includes
all plain wares in the Fort Walton area
which have a sandy paste. It subsumes
specimens previously classified as
Andrews Plain, Englewood Plain, Ingram
Plain, Jefferson Plain, Lake Jackson
Decorated, Lake Jackson Plain, Lamar
Plain, Mller Plain, and Nunnally Plain
(Schnell et al. 1981:175-188; Smith
1948b:317, 1951b:165; Willey 1949:409-
411, 458-460, 474, 482, 491). As it is
defined here, Lake Jackson Plain is an
extremely broad type and it will
undoubtedly be subdivided further if
this typology is adopted. Eight
varieties of Lake Jackson Plain are
described below. They are distin-
guished on the basis of temper type,
temper size, and surface finish.

var. Rood's Landing

This variety contains medium to large
(i.e., > 1 mm diameter) particles of
grog in its paste. Its surfaces are
smoothed but not polished. It is the
dominant form of Lake Jackson Plain in
Lake Jackson phase contexts and is
common in Cayson phase contexts. It is
rare in Rood, Bull Creek, and Yon phase
contexts.

var. Apalachicola

This variety has fine to medium ( >2 mm
diameter) sand tempering and smoothed
surfaces. In the Apalachicola Valley,
it appears to be earlier than and to be
replaced by var. Chattahoochee.

var. Chattahoochee

This variety has coarse sand (> 2 mm
diameter) tempering and rough surfaces.
It is a late variety in both the Lower
Chattahoochee and Apalachicola Valleys.

var. Ingram

This variety has coarse sand (grit)
tempering and smoothed surfaces. It
appears to be the dominant variety of
Lake Jackson Plain in Rood and Bull
Creek phase contexts. In the
Apalachicola Valley it appears late and
is common in Yon phase contexts.

var. Jefferson

This variety has medium to large grog
particles in its paste and rough
surfaces. It is an uncommon variety in
the Apalachicola Valley but is more
common in the Tallahassee Hills, where
it appears in the Lake Jackson phase.

var. Pinellas

This variety has fine to medium sand
tempering and rough surfaces. It is a
late variety in the Apalachicola
Valley, reaching its peak frequency in
the Sneads and Yon phases.

This variety has an extremely fine,
hard paste that Caldwell (1955) de-
scribed as temperless. It is a minori-
ty ware in early Rood and Cayson phase
contexts.

var. Waddells Mill

This variety contains particles of
crushed limestone in its paste. It is
largely restricted to the Marianna
Lowlands where it appears late in the
Waddells Mill Pond Phase.

Lamar Bold Incised (Figure 8f)

The type Lamar Bold Incised was origi-
nally defined by Jennings and Fairbanks
(1939:4). Later uses of the type name
were made by Willey (1949:493),
Caldwell (1953:316), and Wauchope
(1966:82-86). The definition follows
Willey's.

Lamar Bold Incised subsumes vessels
tempered with coarse sand or grit that
are decorated with a band of broad,
deep incised lines on the upper portion
of the vessel. The usual vessel shapes
are carinated and cazuela bowls.

Motifs are continuous bands of curvi-
linear scrolls, or lines with pendant
loops (similar to Lake Jackson Incised,
var. Blountstown). The decorative band
is composed of from 5 to 15 parallel
lines.

Lamar Bold Incised is a late type, and
appears in the Fort Walton area in Bull
Creek, Yon, Velda, and San Luis phase
contexts. Varieties of Lamar Bold
Incised have not yet been defined for
the Fort Walton area.

Lamar Complicated Stamped

The type Lamar Complicated Stamped
includes all coarsely tempered compli-
cated stamped vessels found in the Fort
Walton area. It is distinguishable

var. Tallahassee

221

222

from the Woodland type Swift Creek
Complicated Stamped by it coarser
paste, frequent overstamping, and
generally bolder execution. Lamar
Complicated Stamped may be tempered
with either coarse sand (grit) or by a
combination of coarse sand and grog.
Five varieties are defined from the
Fort Walton area. These are differen-
tiated on the basis of stamp motif.

Jesse Jennings and Charles Fairbanks
(1939:2) originally defined the type
Lamar Complicated Stamped and later,
Willey (1949:1485-1486) used the name
to refer to complicated stamped ceram-
ics found in late Safety Harbor con-
texts. Hale Smith defined a series of
complicated stamped ceramics that he
called Jefferson Ware (1949a, 1951b)
and which Willey (1949:492-493) subse-
quently adopted. Smith found Jefferson
Ware in association with Spanish
mission sites in the Tallahassee Hills
area. He distinguished the type based
on differences in paste and association
between the Jefferson Ware ceramics and
the established type Lamar Complicated
Stamped. Because the two types resem-
ble each other so closely, I have
chosen to subsume Smith's Jefferson
Ware within Lamar Complicated Stamped.

Lamar Complicated Stamped appears to
have developed outside the Fort Walton
area in the South Appalachian
Mississippian style area. Certainly
the type seems to occur much earlier
and in greater abundance and variety
above the Fall Line. In the Fort
Walton area, the type appears late (ca.
A.D. 1300), at the close of the Rood
phase. It is the major material
culture marker for the late Fort Walton
Bull Creek, Yon, and Velda phases and
dominates the aboriginal assemblages of
the historic San Luis phase.

var. Bull Creek (Figure 8c)

Variety Bull Creek features stamped
designs in the form of figure-eights.

It is generally tempered with coarse
sand. It is found in Bull Creek phase
assemblages in the Lower Chattachoochee
Valley (Broyles 1962:Plate lOc-d).

var. Curlee (Figure 8e)

Variety Curlee stamps form plats of
parallel lines that combine to form
checkerboard, herringbone or random
patterns. This is an uncommon variety,
but it has been found in Yon and San
Luis phase contexts (Jones 1973:Plate
7f-g; White 1982:Plate 23g-i).

var. Early (Figure 8a)

The stamps of this variety form sets of
concentric circles. The center of the
design may contain a single raised dot,
a cross, or a cross with four raised
dots. It is the dominant variety of
Lamar Complicated Stamped in Yon phase
contexts in the Apalachicola Valley.
It also occurs in Bull Creek, Velda,
and San Luis phase contexts as a
minority ware (Broyles 1962:Plate 9a-c,
Plate 10a-b; Jones 1973:Plate 7d-e;
Boyd et al. 1951:Plate 11(9-10)).

var. Jefferson (Figure 8b)

The stamp motif of var. Jefferson forms
a series of nested parallelograms. It
is the most common variety in San Luis
phase contexts. At the Scott Miller
site.(La Concepcion de Ayubale) it
constituted nearly 85% of the Lamar
Complicated Stamped sherds (Boyd et al.
1951:Plate 11(7-8); Jones 1973:Plate
7i; Smith 1951b:167-168).

var. Pine Tuft (Figure 8d)

The stamp motif of this variety forms
rows of alternate circles and trian-
gles. It is a rare variety (ca. 3% of
the Lamar Complicated Stamped at La
Concepcion de Ayubale) known only from
the Tallahassee Hills (Smith 1951b:167-
168).

The type Leon Check Stamped subsumes
all boldly check stamped coarsely
tempered ceramics in the Fort Walton
area. Checks on Leon vessels are
larger than 5 mm across and generally
measure about 1 cm on a side. Temper
consists of coarse sand or grog.

The type Leon Check Stamped was origi-
nally defined by Hale G. Smith (1948a)
to describe boldly check marked sherds
he recovered from 17th century
Apalachee mission sites in the
Tallahassee Hills area. Several years
later, William Sears (1951:32-33) used
the term Mercier Check Stamped to refer
to chronologically late, boldly check
marked sherds he recovered from the
Kolomoki site. These two are clearly
related and are easily subsumed as
varieties of a single type.

I had originally included the varieties
of Leon Check Stamped within the type
Wakulla Check Stamped. Several review-
ers of an earlier draft of this typolo-
gy took me to task for this. One of
the major concerns regarding my treat-
ment of check stamped ceramics was that
I had created a "supertype" that would
subsume all check stamped ceramics from
the Southeast from the Early Woodland
through the Removal. After some
reflection, I decided to separate Leon
Check Stamped from Wakulla, for several
reasons. The most important reason was
that most sherds of Leon Check Stamped
are readily sortable from sherds of
Wakulla Check Stamped. The second
reason was that there appear to be
clear distinctions in the contexts of
the two types. I have defined two
varieties of Leon Check Stamped from
Fort Walton contexts.

var. Leon

This variety is equivalent to Smith's
Leon Check Stamped (1948a:318,
1951b:170). It is distinguished by its

This chronologically late variety (it
has been found in Bull Creek and Yon
phase contexts) is characterized by its
large (ca. 1 cm by 1 cm) checks
separated by high narrow lands (Sears
1951:32-33, Plate V2; Caldwell
1955:39).

Marsh Island Incised

The type Marsh Island Incised subsumes
all sandy paste ceramics in the Fort
Walton area whose decoration consists
of a band containing plats of multiple
parallel incised lines. Motifs include
chevrons, checkerboards, and isolated
plats. Marsh Island Incised vessels
include beakers, bottles, bowls and jar
forms. I have defined four varieties.
These are based on differences in the
location of design and motif.

Gordon Willey originally defined Marsh
Island Incised and its Woodland coun-
terpart Carrabelle Incised (1949:422-
425, 466). Subsequently, John Griffin
(1950:106) recognized three variants of
the type at the Lake Jackson site.
Griffin's variants were based on
differences in design motif. More
recently, Schnell et al. (1981:173-175)
resurrected Hurt's (1975:68) Columbia
Incised. This type differed from
Willey's Marsh Island Incised in design
placement. As I have defined Marsh
Island Incised, it subsumes all these

This variety subsumes jars and bowls
with a horizontal band of chevrons or
isolated plats formed by sets of two to
five (typically three) incised lines.
This band is found on the exterior
surface, is usually placed slightly
below the rim, and is frequently
bounded by single horizontal incised
lines (Boyd et al. 1951:Plate 12(1);
Griffin 1950:Figure 38(2, 4); Jones
1973:Plate 5c, e; White 1982:Plate 18e,
Plate 22t-u).

var. Carrabelle (Figure 9c)

A band containing a series of plats
each formed by five or more parallel
incised lines characterize this varie-
ty. It is widespread in both space and
time, and it is common during the
Woodland period. The usual vessel form
is the jar (Griffin 1950:Figure 38(3);
White 1982:Plate 22v-w; White et al.
1981:Figure 14).

var Columbia (Figure 9b)

This variety, which subsumes Schnell et
al.'s Columbia Incised, is decorated on
interior vessel surfaces. This motif
is otherwise similar to that of var.
Marsh Island. The typical vessel is
the flaring rim bowl. This variety is
chronologically early and it serves as
a material culture marker for the early
Rood phase.

var. Scott Miller (Figure 9d)

This variety, which subsumes Smith's
Aucilla Incised, type 2, has a band
containing sets of two or more oblique
wavy incised lines. This band is
generally found on the shoulders of
cazuela bowls. Like Ocmulgee Fields
Incised, var. Aucilla, it is chronolog-
ically late and is a part of the San
Luis phase assemblage (Boyd et al.

1951:Plate 12(13); Jones 1973:Plate
5b).

Mound Place Incised

This widespread shell-tempered type was
originally defined in the lower Missis-
sippi Valley (Phillips et al. 1951:147;
Phillips 1970:135-136) to subsume
simple bowls decorated with multiple
horizontal incised lines. Jenkins
(1981:78-79) extended the use of the
name to Alabama by renaming
Steponaitis's Carthage Incised, var.
Akron, as Mound Place Incised, var.
Akron. Fuller and Stowe extended the
use of the name to the Pensacola area,
where the type is common in late
prehistoric contexts (1982:65-68).
Fort Walton area specimens should be
assigned to varieties defined in one of
these references.

Mississippi Plain

The type Mississippi Plain subsumes all
undecorated Fort Walton vessels tem-
pered with coarse crushed shell.
Specimens previously classified as
Pensacola Plain (Willey 1949:463-464)
are now assigned to this type. The
type appears in nearly all Fort Walton
contexts, although it is rare in the
later phases. In early contexts (e.g.,
Rood and Cayson phases), it may form up
to 20% of the total assemblage. No
varieties have been defined for the
Fort.Walton area.

Moundville Engraved

The type Moundville Engraved
(Steponaitis 1983:314) subsumes all
shell-tempered vessels whose decora-
tions consist of fine dry paste inci-
sion or engraving. It is a rare type
in the Fort Walton area and no varie-
ties are defined here.

Moundville Incised

The type Moundville Incised
(Steponaitis 1983:323) subsumes those

227

coarse shell-tempered vessels decorated
with a series of incised arcades. It
is the shell-tempered equivalent of
Cool Branch Incised. It is rare in
Fort Walton contexts and no varieties
are defined here.

Moundville Incised, var. Moundville
(Steponaitis 1983:324-325), has been
found in early Rood phase contexts at
the Rood's Landing site (Caldwell 1955)
at Cemochechobee, Mandeville, Singer-
Moye and other Rood phase sites in the
Walter F. George Reservoir area
(Knight, personal communication). It
appears to be a marker for the early
portion of that phase.

Ocaulgee Fields Incised

Like Lamar Complicated Stamped,
Ocmulgee Fields Incised was originally
defined on the basis of collections
from central Georgia (Jennings and
Fairbanks 1939). As I use the term
here, it subsumes those sand-tempered
vessels whose decoration consists of a
band of repeating motifs executed with
narrow incised lines. Frequently, the
design motifs are similar to those of
Point Washington Incised. These two
types are undoubtedly related. They
may be distinguished by the width of
the incised lines used to form the
design (the lines in Ocmulgee Fields
Incised are generally less than 2 mm
wide while those of Point Washington
Incised are greater than 2 mm wide).
In the Fort Walton area the type is
chronologically late. I have defined
two varieties from Fort Walton con-
texts.

var. Ocmulgee (Figure 9e)

The decoration on vessels of var.
Ocumulgee consists of a hatched band
containing a series of running scrolls.
The usual vessel is the cazuela bowl.
This variety is found in Velda and San
Luis phase contexts (Boyd et al.
1951:Plate 12(3-5); Jones 1973:Plate
6a-b; White 1982:Plate 24a).

var. Aucilla (Figure 9f)

Decorative bands containing isolated
oblique, interlocking L-forms charac-
terize var. Aucilla. The elements are
made up of two or three parallel
incised lines. The typical vessel form
is the cazuela bowl. This is a chrono-
logically late variety found in San
Luis phase contexts. It is equivalent
to Hale Smith's (1951b:172) Aucilla
Incised, type 4 (Boyd et al. 1951:Plate
12(2); Jones 1973:Plate 5j-k).

Pensacola Incised

This type was originally defined by
Willey (1949:463-464) to include most
shell-tempered incised pottery found in
northwest Florida (i.e., Pensacola and
Fort Walton area contexts). Fuller and
Stowe (1982:69-82) have redefined the
type, excluding specimens now assigned
to Mound Place Incised and including
specimens previously assigned to
Pensacola Three Lines Incised (Willey
1949:466). As defined by Fuller and
Stowe, the type subsumes all shell-
tempered vessels found in the Fort
Walton and Pensacola areas that are
decorated on their exterior surfaces by
dry-paste incision. No new varieties
are defined here.

Point Washington Incised

The type Point Washington Incised
subsumes all ceramics from the Fort
Walton area that have a sandy paste and
are decorated with medium curvilinear
incised lines. It incorporates the
previously defined types Indian Pass
Incised, Hogtown Bayou Epigonal,
Nunnally Incised, and Point Washington
Incised. I have defined four varieties
from Fort Walton contexts.

var. Point Washington (Figure lOa)

The characteristic decorative motif of
var. Point Washington consists of a
series of horizontal running or inter-

locked scrolls. Typical vessel forms
include cazuela or carinated bowls,
bottles, and beakers. It is a late
variety and has been found in Bull
Creek, Sneads, Yon, Lake Jackson,
Velda, and San Luis phase contexts. It
is also known from late prehistoric and
protohistoric contexts in the Pensacola
and Safety Harbor areas, where it has
been referred to as Pinellas Incised
(see Willey 1949:Figure 65a-c, Figure
66a, c). In fact, it may be more
common in those areas than it is in the
Fort Walton area (Boyd et al.
1951:Plate 12(12); Broyles 1962:Plate
4d-f, Plate 5n, Plate 8k; Lazarus and
Hawkins 1976:14(bottom), 54, 66(top),
68(bottom); White 1982:Plate 24b).

var. Chambliss (Figure lOb)

The characteristic decorations of var.
Chambliss are complex curvilinear
designs formed by one to five broad-
line incisions. The designs usually
cover the entire vessel. Vessel forms
include bottles, cazuela bowls, and
gourd or shell effigy forms. This
variety is best known from proto-
historic mortuary contexts along the
Gulf Coast in the Pensacola area (Boyd
et al. 1951:Plate 12(18); Lazarus and
Hawkins 1976:16(top), 21(bottom),
38(bottom), 52(bottom), 59(top),
75(bottom)).

var. Griffith (Figure lla)

The characteristic designs of this
variety are representational forms,
including many which are part of the
Southern Cult iconography. Vessel
forms include carinated and cazuela
bowls. This variety is chronologically
late and has been found in Bull Creek
phase contexts and protohistoric sites
on the Gulf Coast (Broyles 1962:Plates
4a-b, 5v, 8v).

var. Hogtown Bayou (Figure 10d)

The characteristic decorations of var.
Hogtown Bayou are trifoil figures

formed by board line incisions. The
incisions are occasionally filled with
a white pigment. Typical vessel forms
are cazuela bowls. This variety is
best known from protohistoric mortuary
contexts around Choctawhatchee Bay in
the Pensacola area (Lazarus and Hawkins
1976:18(bottom), 19(bottom), 20(bot-
tom)).

This variety subsumes those vessels,
usually simple restricted bowls, with
fine to medium sand tempering and
exterior surfaces covered with small
(1-5 mm) square checks. This variety,
which is equivalent to Willey's Wakulla
Check Stamped, is most common in Weeden
Island contexts where it dominates late
Weeden Island assemblages. However, it

The stamped motif of this variety
consists of distinctly rectangular
small checks. Otherwise it is similar
to var. Wakulla. This variety is found
associated with var. Wakulla in
Chattahoochee Landing phase and Cayson
phase contexts. It does not appear to
occur with great frequency in Woodland
contexts (Bullen 1958:351-352, Plate
73a-b).

Yon Engraved

Yon Engraved subsumes all sand-tempered
vessels in the Fort Walton area deco-
rated by dry paste incision or engrav-
ing. It is a rare type, not previously
described. Two varieties are defined
here. They are distinguished on the
basis of their decorative motifs.

var. Yon (Figure lib)

This variety is characterized by
designs containing bullseye elements
accented by areas of excision. The
only known vessel form is the bottle.
The variety is known only from the Yon
site on the Apalachicola Valley. Its
chronological placement is uncertain
but would appear to be either Cayson or
Sneads phase.

var. Woodruff (Figure lic)

This variety is characterized by
complex representational motifs that
include iconographic elements from the
Southern Cult. The only known speci-

mens of var. Woodruff were found at the
Curlee site. The exact chronological
placement of these sherds is unknown
(White 1982:Plate 8y).

John F. Scarry
Bureau of Archaeological Research
Division of Archives, History and
Records Management
Department of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8020

REFERENCES CITED

Bierce-Gedris, Katharine
1981 Apalachee Hill: The Archaeological Investi-
gation of an Indian site of the Spanish
Mission Period. Unpublished Master s thesis,
Department of Anthropology, Florida State
University, Tallahassee.

Boyd, Mark F., Hale G. Smith, and John W. Griffin
1951 Here They Once Stood: The Tragic End of the
Apalacnee Missions. University of lorinda,
bainesville.

Broyles, Bettye J.
1962 A Lamar Period Site in Southwest Georgia,
9Cla51. University of Georgia Laboratory of
Archaeology series Report b:z-jb.

Bullen, Ripley P.
1949 Indian Sites at Florida Caverns State Park.
The Florida Anthropologist 2:1-9.
1950 An Archaeological Survey of the Chattahoochee
River Valley in Florida. Journal of the
Washington Academy of Science 4U0:Ul-1ib.

232

1958 Six Sites Near the Chattahoochee River in the
Jim Woodruff Reservoir Area, Florida. Bureau
of American Ethnology Bulletin 169:315-T7T6-

Holmes, William H.
1903 Aboriginal Pottery of the Eastern United
States. Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 20:1-231.
1914 Areas of American Culture Characterization
Tentatively Outlined as an Aid in the Study
of the Antiquities. American Anthropologist
16:413-446.

Hurt, Wesley R.
1975 The Preliminary Archaeological Survey of the
Chattahoochee Valley Area in Alabama. In
Archaeological Salvage in the Walter E.
George Basin ot the Chattacnoochee River in
Alabama, edited by D.L. DeJarnette, pp. 6-85.
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Milanich, Jerald T.
1972 Excavations at the Ricahrdson Site, Alachua
County, Florida: An Early 17th Century
Potano Indian Village (With Notes on Potano
Culture Change). Bureau of Historic Sites
and Properties Bulletin 2:35-61.
1974 Life in a 9th Century Indian Household: A
Weeden Island Fall Winter Site on the Upper
Apalachicola River, Florida. Bureau of
Historic Sites and Properties Bulletin 4:1-
44.

Smith, Hale G.
1948a Results of an Archaeological Investigation of
a Spanish Mission Site in Jefferson County,
Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 1:1-10.

1948b Two Historical Archaeological Periods in
Florida. American Antiquity 12:313-319.

1951a Leon-Jefferson Ceramic Types. In Here They
Once Stood: The Tragic End of the Apalachee
Missions, edited by M.F. Boyd, H.i. smith,
and J.w. Griffin, pp. 163-174. University of
Florida, Gainesville.

1951b A Spanish Mission Site in Jefferson County,
Florida. In Here They Once Stood: The
Tragic End of the Apalachee Missions, Edited
by M.I. Boyd, H.G. Smith, and J.W. Griffin,
pp. 107-136. University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Wauchope, Robert
1966 Archaeological Survey of Northern Georgia
with a lest or some Lultural Hypothesis.
Memoir of the society tor American
Archaeology 21. Society for American
Archaeology, Beloit, Wisconsin.

You never get anything for nothing
in this vale of sorrows.
Philip Phillips, 1958

John Scarry's presentation of a type-
variety roster for Fort Walton ceramics
is a welcome first step in reviewing
and revising something that has long
needed it. In two places he tells us
that by definition a type cannot be
subdivided under the old system. Some
of us either did not know this, or
chose to ignore it. Willey recognized
early and late varieties in four of his
types, and I blithely created a number
of sub-types for the Lake Jackson
material. A need was apparent and like
Phillips (1970:23) categories were
created "from an endless number of
possible variations solely because we
think that they are likely to reveal
significant relationships." The type-
variety approach is designed to facili-
tate better organization.

I would hesitate to agree with Scarry
that it is a system "that lacks weak-
nesses." It is still a classificatory
system whose units represent bundles of
attributes, which themselves have
variability. We are still drawing
lines separating the units we create;
this is inevitable. But, I do not look
for a perfect system, merely one that
will minimize the kinds of problems
which Scarry suggests are inherent in
the older terminology.

An earlier adoption of a type-variety
approach might have aided in avoiding
certain confusions. Pinellas Incised
in Willey's classification caused some
early problems. It was defined from
the central coast, given a local name,
and not listed in the Fort Walton
series by Willey. In my work at Lake
Jackson, I found a number of sherds I

felt I had to classify as Pinellas
Incised, and to divide into three sub-
types (Griffin 1950). Some years later
Sears (1967) read what I had written as
an argument for deriving Pinellas
Incised from the Tampa Bay area into
the Lake Jackson area, and from there
spreading to Middle Mississippi! This
was the opposite of my thinking at the
time as the 1950 Safety Harbor report
(Griffin and Bullen 1950) stated
clearly when we said that both Fort
Walton and Safety Habor were "the
results of Mississippi influence
through time." We also said "the name
Pinellas Incised is not too apt", and I
believe now the very name of the type
and the variation included in it caused
the confusion. Sears went on to
subdivide the type into Cool Branch
Incised, Lake Jackson Incised, and
Pinellas Incised, terms which are
retained in Scarry's roster.

Scarry notes that he has been chal-
lenged on his Wakulla Check Stamped,
and I think rightly so. I cannot see
throwing the Deptford types into that
pot, even as varieties, unless one is
going to erect a supertype which
encompasses all sand-tempered check-
stamped pottery of the Southeast.
Brown (1982) has made a stab at the
problem from the Louisiana end, and we
all recognize the need for dealing with
the entire problem, but this may not be
the time or place to reach a ready
solution.

For the most part Scarry's proposed
system deals with the Fort Walton area
and Fort Walton Period, which is in
line with some earlier discussions of
the type-variety approach which
stressed systems bounded within a phase
or period. The broader approach to
Wakulla Check Stamped is the exception
to this approach in the present work.

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

234

September, 1985

Volume 38 Number 3

235

Perhaps other systems for other periods
in the general area need to be proposed
before we can deal realistically with a
long continuum like check stamping.

This paper represents a viable and
valuable contribution to a long stand-
ing series of problems in organizing
our data. Let's hope that it will be
used to build upon rather than being
used without modification for another
three or four decades.

First, I will express a few general
criticisms of John Scarry's proposed
ceramic classification, and then show:
1) that two ceramic types, Englewood
Incised and Safety Harbor Incised,
should not be changed to varieties of
Fort Walton Incised, and 2) that
Scarry's so-called varieties "Safety
Harbor and "Thomas" are misnamed.

Some of John Scarry's proposed changes
obscure relationships and origins which
have been reflected in prior classifi-
cations by the different ceramic series
and cultural complexes to which the
types have been assigned. Some ceramic
types in Scarry's proposed "type-
variety" system include too many
"varieties" traditionally classified as
separate types. For example, had
Scarry seen larger samples of Englewood
Incised and Safety Harbor Incised
ceramics, he would have realized that
they were indeed distinct types rather
than varieties of Fort Walton Incised.
I can say this because I am familiar
with these two types from my work on
the Gulf coast of south-Central Flori-
da. This is the region where both
Englewood Incised and Safety Harbor
Incised were discovered, and where many
specimens of each have been found (but
where Fort Walton Incised is rare).

Englewood Incised and Safety Harbor
Incised each differ from Fort Walton
Incised in vessel form and decoration.
Common Fort Walton Incised vessel forms
such as casuela bowls, straight-sided
shallow bowls, effigy bowls, "soup
plates," and dippers do not occur in
Englewood Series and Safety Harbor
Incised ceramics. Figures 1, 2, and 3
show some of the bowls, bottles, and
cylindrical beakers which are the
vessel forms typical of the Englewood
Series and of Safety Harbor Incised
pottery.

The predominant types of the Englewood
Series are Sarasota Incised and
Englewood Incised. Stirling (1935:384)
described some pottery from the
Englewood Mound (8Sol) as having
"Punctate markings enclosed in a joined
triangular pattern...." Willey
(1949:474) named this pottery "Sarasota
Incised" but his description of its
having "Biscayne" paste was too limited
considering that some subsequently-
found specimens have the same designs
on sand-tempered ware (see Figure 1).
In addition, Willey (1949:472) gave the
name "Englewood Incised" to other
pottery from the Englewood Mound which
had plain bands forming often rectilin-
ear designs (triangles, diamonds,
chevrons, zigzags) with punctate-filled
background. Examples of Englewood
Incised are shown in Figure 2. These
vessel forms and designs are so differ-
ent from those of Fort Walton Incised
that I cannot consider them to be a
variety of Fort Walton Incised.

Figure 3 shows the distinctive incised
and punctated scroll, hand, and nested
semicircle motifs that characterize
Safety Harbor Incised pottery. Typical
vessel forms are bottles or bottle-like
collared jars. Scarry has incorrectly
dubbed some of this pottery "variety
Thomas" and placed it under Fort Walton
Incised. Furthermore, what he calls
"Fort Walton Incised, variety Safety
Harbor" in northwestern Florida is
definitely different that the "true"
Safety Harbor Incised of the peninsula.
He needs to come up with a name dif-
ferent from "Safety Harbor" for the
variety to which he has applied that
name. Moreover, he should do away with
"variety Thomas" and acknowledge Safety
Harbor Incised as a separate type.

In contrast to Fort Walton Incised
ceramics in the Florida panhandle, both

the Englewood Series and Safety Harbor
Incised ceramics occur almost exclu-
sively in sacred contexts in peninsular
Florida. It should be noted that
Safety Harbor Incised and Sarasota
Incised have similarities to Nunnally
Incised and Andrews Decorated respec-
tively, each of which occur in Georgia
(see Schnell, Knight and Schnell 1981).
It should also be noted that many
specimens in the Englewood Series have
been mis-identified or ignored ever
since the types were first described.
This has happened so often that the
Englewood Series has been overlooked in
recent years by many researchers in
Florida.

These brief comments and few figures do
not begin to reveal the complexities of
Englewood and Safety Harbor pottery.
What we need in Florida is more ceramic
research with a regional and series-
specific focus.

Scarry's paper represents the first
attempt to devise a type-variety system
for pottery found in Florida sites. As
such, it is bound to cause a good deal
of dissent and argument among people
actively working on Fort Walton sites
and collections. Even though I am not
working in northwest Florida and have
little firsthand experience with
ceramics from the Fort Walton area or
adjacent culture areas to the north and
west, I can offer some comments from my
more southern Safety Harbor perspec-
tive.

Because many of the pottery types
encountered on Safety Harbor sites are
very similar (especially in regard to
surface decoration) to Fort Walton
ceramics, there is a need for a better
system of classification in order to
study the relationships between the
ceramics from the two areas. As Scarry
notes in his paper, Willey's (1949)
typology has proven to be too restric-
tive as more data have been gathered
from Fort Walton sites. The same
situation is becoming apparent in the
Safety Harbor area as well. A type-
variety system seems to be the next
logical step in trying to standarize
terminology both within the State of
Florida and in relationship to the
Southeast as a whole. If we are to
correctly interpret pottery and other
artifacts, it is important that we
speak the same language as archaeolo-
gists working on similar sites in other
regions.

The inclusion of a table or a list
within each description of which of
Willey's types were being subsumed by
each new type-variety would have been a
useful addition to the paper. Obvious-
ly, this would be impossible in some
cases, but would be helpful for those
of us who are familiar with Willey's
typology.

I do not feel that it is a good idea to
try to define a number of plain varie-
ties (such as the Lake Jackson Plain
type) as separate. It looks to me as
though it would be very difficult to
classify a plain sherd on the basis of
the description given here. There
classification appears to depend mainly
on the context of their discovery.

In var. Pinellas is supposed to replace
Willey's Pinellas Plain, some mention
of the laminated, contorted paste
should be made. This is a major
attribute of this ware in the Safety
Harbor area.

In the discussion of Pensacola Incised,
I would like to point out that inci-
sions made in dry paste are generally
referred to as engraving (Shepard
1956:198). I mention this in the
interest of standardized terminology.

On a more general level, I believe that
a number of Florida researchers, myself
included, will have difficulty adjust-
ing to a type-variety system because we
have never used one in Florida before.
We have used Willey's 1949 typology for
sites on the Gulf Coast (and other
parts of the state as well), and it
will be quite a chore to rethink old
site reports without actually reana-
lyzing the collections themselves.

Though some archaeologists feel that a
type-variety system will not work in
northwest Florida (Brose 1981) or even
in the greater Southeast (Sears 1969),
it should be tried, and Scarry's
version appears adequate on paper.
However, the real test will be the
analysis of a large collection without
duplicating the efforts of others or
going overboard by creating a constant-
ly expanding list of varieties. More
harm than good would be done if each
researcher created new types and

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

240

September, 1985

Volume 38 Number 3

241

varieties without regard to previously
defined types and varieties from
adjacent areas. If Phillips' (1970:26-
28) "Ground Rules for Type-Variety
Formulation" are followed, along with
careful review of the literature before
defining new varieties, Scarry's system
should prove useful to archaeologists
working on Fort Walton sites, and
should also aid researchers in adjacent
areas to better interpret the results
of work on Fort Walton sites.

REFERENCES CITED

Brose, David S.
1981 Mississippian Cultures in the Area of
North-western Florida: A Temporal and
Geographic Perspective on Fort Walton.
Paper distributed at the Avery Island
Conference on Gulf Coast Prehistory, New
Iberia, Louisiana.

I wish to thank the editor of The
Florida Anthropologist for this oppor-
tunity to comment on Scarry's thought-
ful Fort Walton ceramic typology. My
own practical exposure to these issues
has developed with a western and
northern bias, first indirectly through
Pensacola, Moundville, and Piedmont
Lamar in Alabama, and more recently
through studies of Rood Phase
Mississippian ceramics on the lower
Chattahoochee. This perspective,
naturally, has much bearing on the
issues I see as important in viewing
Fort Walton ceramic style.

Scarry, much to his credit, tells us
specially the kinds of issues he wants
to see confronted with this new
classification. I am not so sure that
his objections to previous typologies
should be framed, necessarily, in terms
of inherent deficiencies seen in those
alternatives. Scarry's purposes are
simply different from those to which
the earlier typologies were oriented,
either implicitly or explicitly.

Scarry wishes his typology to reflect
cultural continuities through time.
More specifically, many of the continu-
ities sought are with Weeden Island.
This is an old Fort Walton problem, and
one which comes into renewed focus in
efforts to explain early Fort Walton
development by reference to processes
affecting late Weeden Island societies.
Scarry's typology does a good job in
accenting those continuities which seem
reasonable, for example by merging
Carrabelle Incised into the Marsh
Island Incised type (some might argue
that this should have been done the
other way around). There are a few
such ceramic conservatism and these
deserve emphasis.

Still, I am impressed by the fact that
those types and varieties defined here
that exhibit continuities with Weeden
Island, despite receiving emphasis,
remain greatly outmatched by the
proportion lacking clear late Weeden
Island derivation or counterpart. What
should emerge here intact is the
burgeoning innovativeness and diversity
in ceramics across the late Weeden
Island to Fort Walton boundary. Use of
Scarry's typology should lead to
further questions about the context and
tempo of these innovations. It should
tell us at least as much about discon-
tinuity as it does about continuity.

Scarry's typology also recognizes the
need for a classification which incor-
porates Safety Harbor within a unified
Fort Walton ceramic system. It remains
to be seen how well this will work,
especially since the Safety Harbor
decorated varieties are to be divorced
of any reference to "Pinellas paste."
Our suggestion in the Cemochechobee
typology (Schnell et al. 1981) was that
this problem be handled by controlling
ware groups, or paste classes, inde-
pendently from the formal typology.
Scarry's solution is more like the one
employed by Sears (1967) for Tierra
Verde, in which paste categories were
used primarily to differentiate plain
types, while at the same time they
were allowed to crosscut the decorated
classes.

The other major difference between this
and the Cemochechobee typology lies in
different emphasis placed on the
variable of vessel shape. At
Cemochechobee, vessel shape was em-
ployed as a integral part of the
definition of types, whereas for Scarry
it occasionally appears as a determi-

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

242

September, 1985

Volume 38 Number 3

243

nant at the variety level. I see this
difference primarily as a matter of
differing research orientations rather
than as a function of general practi-
cality. At Cemochechobee we were less
interested in compatibility with other
type-variety systems in current use,
than in orienting the typology to
address topics of more immediate
concern. We wished to clarify, for one
thing, the basic Middle Mississippian
character of the Rood phase ceramic
assemblage. Types such as our Lake
Jackson Decorated, comprising all
collared Mississippian jars, and
Columbus Incised, the interior incised
flared-rim bowls whose closest rela-
tionships lie with standard
Mississippian forms to the north and
west, exemplify the kinds of broad-
scale relationships we wished to
emphasize. Another influencing factor
was our interest in defining the
prestige or elite sub-assemblage at
Cemochechobee, consisting of beakers,
bottles, and other forms. We wanted to
avoid a typological system which would
crosscut, and thus submerge, these
functionally significant groups.

Concerning the Cemochechobee typology,
I might add that there is an apparent
misconception about the relative
effectiveness of that system in classi-
fying assemblages of sherds rather than
whole vessels. While it certainly
targets rims as indicators of vessel
shape, there were few problems involved
in using it to classify many thousands
of sherds both at Cemochechobee and at
Singer-Moye. Though plain body sherds
were usually not assignable to a type,
they were nevertheless sorted and
tabulated by ware classes at about the
same level of specificity as the plain
types used in alternative schemes.

I hope it is clear that these remarks
are not intended to defend one typology
as somehow inherently better than an
alternative. "Better" is always in
relation to specific research inten-
tions, and these are always going to

differ among investigators. Scarry's
typology of Fort Walton ceramics is
designed principally to measure simi-
larities and differences at the assem-
blage level which will contribute to
the definition of significant regional
and temporal Mississippian phenomena
(e.g., phases) in the Fort Walton area.
In relation to this goal, the proposed
system appears generally sound in its
selection of space and time-sensitive
ceramic characteristics. I look
forward to seeing it used and subse-
quently refined, along with many other
kinds of classifications that will
address much of the stylistic, techno-
logical, and functional variability in
Fort Walton ceramics which cannot be
tapped by traditionally phrased binomi-
al typologies.

Vernon James Knight, Jr.
Senior Research Archaeologist
Office of Archaeological Research
The University of Alabama
College of Arts and Sciences
1 Mound State Monument
Moundville, Alabama

COMMENTS ON COMMENTS ON A PROPOSED FORT WALTON CERAMIC TYPOLOGY
John F. Scarry

Having read the comments of John
Griffin, Jim Knight, George Luer, and
Jeffrey Mitchem, I am glad that Louis
Tesar suggested soliciting their
comments on my proposed Fort Walton
ceramic typology. When Louis first
made the suggestion, I was a little
worried. What would people think of my
ideas? What would they say about them?
My anxiety was natural, I think. After
all, you can become personally involved
in the things you write.

The results of this exercise are well
worth any anxiety I felt. The comments
will, in the long run, (as they do
immediately) improve my typology.
Additionally, the comments make
contributions on their own. John
Griffin reminds us that Willey's
typology evolved, as good typologies
should. If my proposal is adopted, I
hope everyone who uses it remembers
John's discussion and work to improve
my construct. Jim Knight reminds us
that typologies are tools we use to
examine the past. As a carpenter has
different tools for different jobs, we
can have different typologies for
different analyses. Typologies are not
reality. George Luer presents new
information on the ceramics of the
Safety Harbor area and demonstrates the
need for serious studies of the
ceramics of that area that go far
beyond what I have tried to do.
Jeffrey Mitchem cautions against
intemperate use of a system like the
one I propose. He identifies a real
drawback to the type-variety approach,
one that everyone who uses it should
remember. Finally, all of the
discussants provide specific,
substantive comments on the construction
of my proposed typology and the types
and varieties I have defined. I do not
necessarily agree with every
suggestion, but I do believe that the

typology is much sounder for the
incorporation of many of them.

We must have researchers who make
discoveries, who construct and evaluate
theories and explanations, who improve
our methods of investigating the past,
and who publish the results of their
work. However, we cannot rely on these
contributions alone. We must have
evaluations, comments, criticisms,
corrections of published works if we
are to derive the greatest benefit from
the work of every archaeologist. I am
pleased that my proposed ceramic
typology is the first article in The
Florida Anthropologist to receive this
kind of treatment. I hope it is not
the last.

John Griffin chides me for ignoring the
fact that I am not the first person to
attempt to subdivide some of Willey's
types. I am sorry if I gave the
impression that Willey's construct was
a static entity, unmodified until I
came along. Willey's typology has
changed many times. Hale Smith (1948)
proposed the addition of the types of
the Leon-Jefferson complex; Willey
modified the original typology in
Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast
(1949); John Griffin subdivided Marsh
Island Incised and Pinellas Incised
(1950); and, William Sears made major
changes to the typology in his report
on the Tierra Verde mound (1967).

Like any typology in wide use, Willey's
has evolved. This evolution is evident
in the addition of new types, in the
subdivision of previously defined
types, and in the alteration of sorting
criteria used to assign sherds to a
type. Such change is good. It is the
sign of a vigorous and flexible tool.
The results of this evolution can be
seen in several of the comments.

September, 1985

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

244

Volume 38 Number 3

245

Jeffrey Mitchem questions my failure to
mention the "laminated, contorted
paste" of Pinellas Plain in my
description of its presumed
replacement, Lake Jackson Plain, var.
Pinellas (as did several anonymous
readers). It is true that most
archaeologists working in the Safety
Harbor area do think of Pinella Plain
in this manner. This is not the way
Willey defined it, however. He stated
that Pinellas Plain was similar in ware
characteristics to Safety Harbor
Incised except that it, "as a rule ...
tends to be harder, more compact than
Safety Harbor Incised" (1949:482).
Willey defined Safety Harbor Incised
very broadly. It could be clayey and
possibly temperless or it could be
tempered with fine or medium-coarse
sand. Its paste could range from
granular and compact to coarse,
contorted and laminated. It is evident
that Willey did not intend to restrict
Pinellas Plain as it has come to be
restricted.

Modification of Willey's original type
definitions can also be seen in George
Luer's comments. Luer is quite
explicit about his modification of the
definition of Sarasota Incised. He has
also modified the definitions of Safety
Harbor Incised and Englewood Incised.
Willey did not restrict Safety Harbor
Incised to globular bowls, bottles, and
beakers (1949:481), nor did he restrict
Englewood Incised to beakers
(1949:472). These may be common vessel
forms of these types but they are not
the only forms, if Willey's original
definitions are followed. Further
evidence of the change in the
definition of Safety Harbor Incised is
evident in Luer's statement that what I
call and illustrate as Fort Walton
Incised, var. Safety Harbor, is not
real Safety Harbor. The sherd that I
illustrate is one that Willey himself
identified as Safety Harbor Incised
(see Willey 1949:Plate 49a). I do not
want to suggest that Luer is wrong. He
may well be right in saying that
workers in the Safety Harbor area would
not now call that sherd from the Safety

Harbor mound Safety Harbor Incised.
But that it is because the definition
has changed.

Griffin questions the lumping of
Deptford types into Wakulla Check
Stamped (as did nearly every reviewer).
Upon sober reflection, I excluded the
Deptford types of Wakulla. John is
right that this is neither the time nor
the place to attempt this. Therefore,
you will not find Deptford subsumed
into Wakulla in my typology.

Mitchem states that he doubts the
utility of my plain varieties, since he
thinks that they would be difficult to
sort. Perhaps that is true, although
varieties do not necessarily have to be
100% sortable. Context can be a major
factor in the sorting of varieties. I
would hesitate to totally ignore the
paste differences I tried to isolate
with my varieties of Lake Jackson Plain
(see Tesar 1980:167, 168, 203-205,
1980b:14, 25-26; and this issue).

Knight states that I wish my typology
to reflect cultural continuities
through time, particularly between
Weeden Island and Fort Walton. He also
points out that there is evidence for
such continuity, evidence that deserves
emphasis. In earlier studies, I have
emphasized the evolution of Fort Walton
societies in the Apalachicola Valley
from indigenous Weeden Island groups;
Knight has emphasized the Middle
Mississippian origins of many of the
Fort Walton ceramic styles. Our
positions do not conflict, at least not
in my view. I would hope that my
typology would be a tool useful to both
of us. Anthropology has been devised
as the description and explanation of
cultural similarities and differences,
stability and change (Price 1980:709),
a typology should help us do anthro-
pology.

Knight goes on to discuss the
differences between my typology and the
one he helped devise for the
Cemochechobee site. Anyone thinking of
using my typology should read and

246

seriously consider Knight's comments.
Typologies are tools tools we use to
extract data from the artifacts we dig
up. There is no right or wrong
typology, just different typologies
that tell us different things about the
past. What Knight and Frank and Gail
Schnell tried to do at Cemochechobee is
important. The questions they raised
are interesting and well worth
investigating. My typology is not the
tool for that investigation, theirs is
much better. Their typology, on the
other hand, is not a particularly good
tool for investigating the questions I
want to ask, I think mine is.

John Griffin says that he would
"hesitate to agree with Scarry that it
(the type-variety system) is a system
that lacks weaknesses"". So would I.
The type-variety approach is rife with
weaknesses, as Griffin, Knight and
Mitchem all point out. It lacks some
of the weaknesses that I see in the
type-series approach but it is not
perfect. Anyone who uses by typology
or anyone who continues to use Willey's
typology should take care to remember
the imperfection of their tools.

I want to thank Louis Tesar, John
Griffin, Jim Knight, George Luer, and
Jeffrey Mitchem for their contributions
to my work. I thinkmy typology has
benefited from their comments; I know I
have benefited as a scholar.

Several radiocarbon and thermolumine-
scence dates were recently obtained as
a result of the Florida State Museum-
Withlachoochee River Archaeology
Council excavations at two eastern
Citrus County sites. Three radiocarbon
dates were obtained from two features
at the Bayonet Field site (8Ci197), a
shell midden. Two of the dates were
based on charcoal samples from a
probable hearth (Feature 7), which was
filled with burned freshwater shell,
food bone, and charcoal. These samples
yielded ranges of dates of 1000 60
B.P., or A.D. 890-1010 (Beta-12679);
and 630 + 50 B.P., or A.D. 1270-1370
(Beta-12680). The wide discrepancy in
the dates makes interpretation diffi-
cult, but we are inclined to accept the
former date as more accurate since part
of the second sample had been exposed
to the elements for two weeks. The
feature was located on the edge of an
excavation unit, so only half of it was
excavated to begin with. The first
sample (Beta-12679) came from this
half. Later, we were able to excavate
the adjacent unit, recovering the
remaining feature contents and the
second charcoal sample. In the inter-
im, the edge of the charcoal mass had
been left exposed in the profile.
However, the actual sample did not
include the exposed portion of the
charcoal mass.

The third date was based on charcoal
from a nearby hearth (Feature 13)
containing well preserved food bone,
ash, freshwater shells, and a Pinellas
projectile point. The sample yielded a
date range of 1050 90 B.P., or A.D.
810-990 (Beta 12681). Artifacts from
the portion of the midden where these
samples were collected clearly indicate
mixed Weeden Island-related and Safety
Harbor components, which are supported
by all three of the dates. The

Volume 38 Number 3 THE FLORID

Pinellas Point (Bullen 1975:8) from
Feature 13 also supports this interpre-
tation.

One radiocarbon and two thermolumine-
scence (TL) dates were obtained from
the Tatham Mound (8Ci203), a Safety
Harbor burial mound. The radiocarbon
date was determined from a charcoal
sample recovered from mound fill about
50 cm below the mound surface. It
yielded a date range of 730 60 B.P.,
or A.D. 1160-1280 (Beta-12678).
Because of associated Spanish Artifacts
and a TL date from the same stratum
(see below), this date must be in
error. Spanish artifacts from nearby
date the level to the first two-thirds
of the sixteenth century. The discrep-
ancy is probably due to the "old wood"
problem (Johnson et al. 1985), the
accidental inclusion of part of an old
post or very old charcoal in the fill
used to construct the mound.

The two TL dates were obtained from
pottery sherds with associated soil
samples. One of these was from the
original (pre-mound) ground surface,
and the other was from the top stratum,
about 9 cm below the surface of the
mound summit. The first of these (the
pre-mound sample) yielded a date range
of 740 100 B.P., or A.D. 1110-1310
(Alpha-1940). The second sample (top
stratum) yielded a date range of 330 +
50, or A.D. 1570-1670 (Alpha-1939).

The availability of three independent
methods of dating (radiocarbon, TL, and
European artifact dating) for the
Tatham Mound provides a rare opportuni-
ty to test the efficiency of radiocar-
bon and TL dating, and also results in
a higher level of confidence in dating
the mound. The close similarity of the
radiocarbon date and the TL date from
the pre-mound surface strengthens the

>A ANTHROPOLOGIST

247

September, 1985

248

interpretation of the charcoal sample
as accidentally included in the mound
fill while collecting soil from around
the mound. The lower end of the TL
date range from the top stratum (A.D.
1570) fits with the date range provided
by the glass beads from the same level,
A.D. 1500-1580 (Mitchem et al. 1985:40-
41).

SHOWCASING ARCHAEOLOGY: PUBLIC IfTERPRETATION AT SAN LUIS
Marsha A. Chance

By now most readers interested in
Florida archaeology know that the San
Luis Archaeological and Historic Site,
purchased by the State of Florida in
1983, is the location of a large
seventeenth-century Spanish and
Apalachee Indian town. It is inside
the city limits of Tallahassee and
presently consists of a fifty-acre
hilltop of shaded lawn surrounding a
1930s-era residence. The site is
managed by the Department of State,
Division of Archives, History and
Records Management. While the staff of
the Bureau of Archaeological Research
is conducting the archaeological
investigation under the direction of
Dr. Gary Shapiro, the Museum of Florida
History is handling public interpreta-
tion of the site. San Luis represents
a unique opportunity not only to
extensively investigate a very signifi-
cant settlement but to involve the
public in the process.

Our goals at San Luis are to increase
public awareness and interest in past
cultures and to promote an under-
standing of the value of archaeology
and site preservation. Specifically,
we hope to involve interested individu-
als, not only as visitors but as
volunteers who assist us in the inter-
pretive, archaeological, and mainte-
nance processes.

Our first volunteers joined us on March
23, 1985 for our grand opening entitled
"Rediscover San Luis." Approximately
3,000 people were on the grounds that
day, including over 2,800 visitors, at
least 50 local volunteers, and 40
reenactors. The volunteers included
interested laymen who helped guard open
artifact displays and direct traffic,
as well as many archaeologists who
contributed their time and expertise to
the enhancement of the event. Everyone
was very pleased with the good ques-

tions and general enthusiasm of the
crowd. They arrived by shuttlebus at
the front gate where they received
schedules of the day's events.
Festivities began with a dedication
procession and ceremony hosted by
Secretary of State George Firestone.
Special guests included state
officials, several Franciscans, and the
Spanish counsul from Miami as well as
John Griffin who excavated at San Luis
in 1948.

Visitors were able to hear members of
the San Luis crew explain field work in
progress, while Dr. Shapiro packed the
house for lectures on the archaeology
of San Luis. The reenactors staged a
17th century encampment including
drills and musket firing demonstra-
tions, generally adding to the color
and excitement of the event. Craftsmen
demonstrated shoemaking, log squaring,
bowl carvings, pottery making, and
dyeing and spinning. If they wished
visitors could examine 17th century
weapons from Spanish shipwrecks, and a
selection of faunal and botanical
remains, as well as copper breastplates
and other burial goods from the nearby
Lake Jackson mounds. They also read
with interest a number of portable
poster exhibits which answered
questions like "How do you know where
to dig?" and "What is a professional
archaeologist?"

Permanent trailside exhibits, display a
summary of the initial investigative
processes at the site, the artifacts
and culture of the fort constructed at
San Luis in 1696, and the interaction
between the Spanish and Apalachee
cultures. Artifacts in the exhibits
are mostly from previous excavations at
San Luis.

Other entertainment included seven-
teenth-century, one-act comedies,

249

250

period music played on antique instru-
ments, and centuries-old folk music for
dancing. Museum personnel also helped
children make coiled pots and copper
breastplates throughout the day.
Much of the opening celebration was
video-taped and we are developing
programs from the tape, particularly of
the reenactors who assumed seventeenth-
century personae to describe their
activities and equipment. An oral
history project is planned around
interviews of people who have lived at
San Luis and their descendants. Other
historic documentation and research
will also continue.

Since March 23, 1985, over 3,000
visitors have been to San Luis. Most
are school children who seem very
interested in what we are doing and are
amazingly well behaved. Next year
volunteers will be invited to partici-
pate as archaeological laborers on a
limited basis and volunteer docents
have already begun to educate visitors
about the history and archaeology of
San Luis. We are trying to apply the
insights learned by other archaeolo-
gists, such as those in Baltimore, who
are excavating downtown, always in the
public eye, and with the assistance of
volunteers. For example, when describ-
ing our procedures to people, we try to
give them enough information from the
beginning, as well as our own specula-
tions, to allow them to formulate
intelligent questions.

This summer the Musuem hosted three
weeks of day camps. Two groups studied
Florida archaeology and prehistory and
this year we added a session of the
mission period, which was held at San
Luis. The campers, ages 10 to 13,
excavated a site constructed for them,
built a wattle and daub wall, learned
to make fire, and forged their own
nails, among numerous other activities.
In September we will conduct an eight-
week training program for docents at
San Luis. Lectures will include the
philosophy of archaeology, field tech-

niques, artifact studies, and outdoor
teaching techniques. Goals for 1986
include preparation of teaching units
for specific age groups, to be distrib-
uted in the local public schools. We
expect to develop special programming
and, eventually, to create an exhibit
hall inside the house.

Many people have asked if we will be
reconstructuing buildings. The answer
is "yes, we hope so," if the data
warrants it and money is available. In
the meantime, the reenactors from St.
Augustine are anxious to return to San
Luis to stage more living history
events and there is talk of starting a
San Luis chapter of the Historic
Florida Militia so that we can fire a
few muskets ourselves to celebrate the
past. We have received many request to
hold another "Rediscover San Luis" next
year and an archaeological exposition
has been suggested. Innovative ideas
on ways to interpret an archaeological
excavation to nonprofessional visitors
are invited from all FAS members and we
welcome your visits. Call or write for
a personal or group tour.

Marsha A. Chance
Museum Program Supervisor
San Luis Archaeological and
Historic Site
c/o Division of Archives, History and
Records Management
Department of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32301-8020
(904) 488-1484

BACK ISSUES ORDER FORM

Back issues may be ordered by
copying and completing this
form, or simply writing a letter
including the necessary informa-
tion. Do not forget to include
the $2.00 postage and handling
charge, or to subtract any ap-
plicable discounts. Orders for
back issues should be sent to
the Editor (see inside of front
cover) along with a check or
money order made payable to the
Florida Anthropological Society.

A 10% discount is given to all
members ordering back issues.
In addition, a 10% discount is
given to both members and non-
members ordering 10 or more
copies OF THE SAME ISSUE. For
example, ten copies of FA 36(1-
2) at $10.00 each cost $100.00
less $10.00 for a subtotal of

$90.00. However, ONLY ONE OF
EACH may be ordered for issues
with a ** or (10 or less, and
20 or less copies in stock re-
spectively) since so few copies
remain before they become out of
print. Out of print issues may
be ordered from Johnson Reprint
Corp. (see inside back cover).

When ordering, please fill in
the form by writing the number
of copies ordered, then multiply
by the price per issue and enter
the subtotal (less any applica-
ble discount for orders of ten
or more) in the space beside the
issues being ordered.

For those of you who are not yet members of our Society, I have included a copy
of our membership application form which may be photocopied and sent to our
Membership Secretary along with a check or money order made payable to the
Florida Anthropological Society. You do not have to be a resident of Florida to
belong to our Society. You membership serves as your subscription to this
journal.

HERE IS A GREAT GIFT IDEAl Why not give someone a gift subscription to The
Florida Anthropologist by completing the membership application below. If
you include a card we will place it in an envelope with the first issue of the
gift subscription. What could be better than helping to make people aware of
historic preservation concerns by providing them with a unique and informative
publication which they can read and use for years to come? And, by helping us
to increase our membership, you will also help provide the means of further
improving our journal.
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

Please note that you may copy the information off of the above form
and include it in a hand-written or typed letter, if you do not have access to a
photocopier. You only need to copy the information for the back issues which you
want to order. By doing this you will not need to damage this issue by tearing
out the page. Thank you for your interest.
Louis D. Tesar, Editor
The Florida Anthropologist

(38, 1985)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS
THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST publishes original papers in all subfields of anthro-
pology with an emphasis on archaeology. Contributions from allied disciplines are
acceptable when concerned with anthropological problems. The journal's geograph-
ical scope is Florida and adjacent regions. While authors are not paid for their
articles, twenty-five reprints (without covers) of each published article are
provided. Preference is given to submissions by Society members.

Manuscripts should be double-spaced and typed on one side only of 8' x 11 inch
paper. Authors should refer to the Editorial Policy and Style Guide published in
Volume 37(1). Manuscripts submitted in styles other than that presented in the
Style Guide will be returned to their authors. Authors should submit the original
and four copies of their manuscript for review. Manuscripts submitted to THE
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST should not be under consideration by any other journal or
other publication at the same time or have been published elsewhere. Individual
copies of the Editorial Policy and Style Guide may be obtained by writing the
Editor and remitting $1,00 to the Florida Anthropological Society for single copies
or $5.00 for packets of ten copies for postage and handling costs.

Receipt of manuscripts submitted for review for publication will be acknowledged
by the Editor. Copies of manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editor, at least two
Editorial Board members, and when appropriate Guest Editors and/or other profes-
sionals knowledgeable in the subject or methodology presented. Review comments
will be used to determine whether or not to accept a manuscript for publication
and to prepare editorial comments. The Editor will generally notify authors of
the Editorial Staff's decision within two or three months of receipt. A manu-
script may be accepted as is or with minor revisions; rejected provisionally with
the request that the authors) rework the text and resubmit it for reconsid-
eration; or, rejected outright. In the latter instance the original copy of the
manuscript will be returned to the authorss. Authors of accepted manuscripts
will be asked to respond to Editorial Staff comments and questions, if any, and
will be provided with the opportunity to review galleys of their articles prior to
publication.

BACK ISSUES

Back issues of THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST may be purchased from the Editor for
$5.00 for single numbers and $10.00 for double numbers. Order forms are available.
Mail orders include an added postage and handling charge of $2.00. Checks should
be made payable to the Florida Anthropological Society. The following issues are
out of print: Volumes 1; 2:3-4; 5:1-2; 6:1,4; 7; 8; 9; 10; 12:1-3; 13:1-3; 15:4;
16:1,3; 17; 18; 20; 21; 23:2,4; 24:1; 25:3-4; 26:1; 27:1,3; 30:1 and 35:4.

Volume 35, Number 4, the Third Bahamian Conference issue, is available for $10.00.
Orders for this issue should be sent to CCFL, 292 S.W. 34th Street, Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida 33315 and NOT to the Editor.

Copies of the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY PUBLICATIONS, a monograph series,
may be purchased for $7.00 each from the Editor. Mail orders include an added
$2.00 postage and handling charge. Checks should be made payable to the Florida
Anthropological Society. Numbers 8, 9, 10 and 11 are available. Numbers 1
through 7 are out of print.

Please allow six to eight weeks for delivery of mail orders. The Society offers a
resale discount for purchases of 10 or more copies of individual issues on a
quantity available basis. Inquiries should be addressed to the Editor.

Reprints of back issues may also be obtained from Johnson Reprint Corp., 111
Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003. Vols. 1-13 are available for $20.00 per
volume, $10.00 per double numbers, and $4.50 per single number. Numbers 1-5
of the PUBLICATIONS are $5.50 per number.